Hannibal was basically in a hostile land, without proper logistics support. There was no way that he can stay still and lay siege, only way he was able to survive so far was his ability to stay mobile and live off the land.
In case of siege, the Romans would not need to fight, they could simply wait until his army slowly died from attrition.
Can't emphasise that enough. Especially if you're into black clothing and have a black bike.
"This showed that for cars DRL reduces the number of daytime injury crashes by 3-12%. The effect on fatal crashes can be estimated as somewhat greater (-15%)."
It seems like a very similar issue arises with the "natural language query" problem for database systems. My best guess at a solution in that domain is to restrict the interface. Allow the LLM to generate whatever SQL it wants, but parse that SQL with a restricted grammar that only allows a "safe" (e.g. non-mutating) subset of SQL before actually issuing queries to the database. Then figure out (somehow) how to close the loop on error handling when the LLM violates the contract (e.g. generates a query which doesn't parse).
Then of course there's the whole UX problem of even when you restrict the interface to safe queries, the LLM may still generate queries which are completely incorrect. The best idea I can come up with there is to dump the query text to an editor where the user can review it for correctness.
So it's not really "natural language queries" more like "natural language SQL generation" which is a completely different thing and absolutely should not be marketed as the former.
People bring up this concept as a way to make systems "more friendly to novice users" which tbh makes me a little uncomfortable, because it seems like just a huge footgun. I'd rather have novice users struggle a bit and become less novice, than to encourage them to run and implicitly trust queries which are likely incorrect.
So it's a bit difficult to tell how much value is added here over some basic intellisense style autocomplete.
Looking to the world of "real tools" like hammers and saws, we don't see "novice hammers" or "novice saws". The tool is the tool, and your skill using it grows as you use it more. It seems like a bit of a boondoggle to try to guess what might be good for a novice and orient your entire product experience around that, rather than simply making a tool that's good for experts doing real work and trusting that the novices will put in the effort to build expertise.
Only if you give it unfettered accesss. AWS has an API called AssumeRole which can generate short-lived credentials with a specifically scoped set of permissions, which I use instead.
Parquet files being immutable is not a bug, it is a feature. That is how you accomplish good compression and keep the columnar data organized.
Yes, it is not useful for continuous writes and updates, but it is not what it is designed for. Use a database (e.g. SQLite just like you suggested) if you want to ingest real time/streaming data.
The financial transactions are also shared by the both sides, EU can also request data from US, as clearly stated in the document.
Both document clearly define the uses cases that are applicable for the data sharing, and the second document linked by you also explicitly states that US has to put same effort to provide same capabilities to EU as well.